I think its good DMOZ asks applicants if they are webmasters or not. My next question would be a URL to your site. That would speak volumes. If a site is commercial, that's not an automatic turnoff. IF a site is spammy, overly SEOed, playing black-hat tricks etc., well thanks but no thanks.

Suppose some guy has a site all about dung beetles, just because they interest him. If he has new information, he could get his site listed quickly, and might make a very good editor.

This may sound harsh, but the people most afraid to say they are webmasters, and most afraid to reveal their sites, are probably the people DMOZ don't want for editors. -Larry

let me rephrase this.Most DMOZ Editors are webmasters themselfes promoting thier own site. Another webmaster applies to become an editor with websites competeing with his own . So why would the DMOZ webmaster accept me if i pause a threat to him and his business. After all im his competitor. Its almost like Walmart accepting Sears to sell thier products in thier stores.

The category editors do not have any input on new editor applications/approvals. They not only can not approve or decline them, they do not even know they exist.

There is a group of high level editors who can accept or decline applications, these are staff, admins, metas, and catmods, with the majority being processed by the meta group.

These meta editors have proven themselves trustworthy to the internal community, and are extremely unlikely to happen to be 'competing web masters'. Even if they do happen to have a site in a niche that you occupy, the same meta is unlikely to process each editor application (applications are pooled and available for all metas to process, not queued for a specific meta), and have also shown themselves able to be impartial in editing/application processing.

I realise this is not immediately visible externally, but it can be gleaned by reading the editor responsibilities (editing guidelines, linked from the about dmoz link on the main page)

The editor application is looking for integrity as well as showing your ability to learn (or at least be capable of learning) to edit within the published guidelines.

souffle, you've received excellent advice in this thread. It shouldn't be difficult to capture the consistent theme in the advice - just be honest when you apply and follow the guidelines after being accepted.

On the other hand, you could try to play hide the ball, slide in under the radar and then act as you choose, even if it is with ill intent.

However, nefarious conduct isn't too difficult to spot. So your changes would most likely be nullified, and any site directly connected to you booted and flagged.

So really, the only question left for you is a simple one: if you want to be an editor, which course of action makes the most long term sense, both for you and for dmoz? (or setting aside dmozx for the moment, for any other directory where you may decide to apply as an editor)

souffle, welcome to planet earth. It is not at all like your home, and it may take you a long time to get used to it. Society is organized differently here.

(1) "Webmasters" isn't some new elite caste, above the rest of the world. It's just a small set of low-level clerical semi-skills. It has nothing to do with content creation, any more than bookbinding has to do with literature. "webmasters" are just the electronic equivalent of the people who paste mailing labels on the boxes of books at the publisher's warehouse. They are so replaceable, that it's silly to talk about "competition" at all. If all the webmasters on earth died tomorrow, there'd still be enough copies of "learn webmastering in 24 hours" on the shelves of Borders Books and Records, to supply the earth's full need of webmasters by next Monday. Because one intelligent webmaster/clerk, with intelligent use of computer-automated processes, can handle the clerical needs of thousands of content creators.

(2) Some editors do possess a useful subset of the webmaster skillset; some don't. Some have done web development professionally (that is, for hire.) Some haven't. Some have even done web development on behalf of the ODP. But that is totally irrelevant to the directory project -- since someone ELSE initially provided web development that it needed.

(3) However, all ODP volunteers (not just "most" of us) are content creators. The ODP is (for most, not all of us) only one of the kinds of content we create. But if you visit any other large volunteer content creation project, you'll meet some of us volunteering there also. We typically let someone else handle the grunt work--and focus on creating content which adds to the sum of human culture on the internet.

(4) Most of the ODP was developed by amateurs. Not professionals. I'll never make a penny writing or performing music, writing literature, teaching science, studying history, or promoting religion. That doesn't mean I don't know more about every one of those subjects than 99 of the next 100 webmasters you meet. But to make money in those areas, you have to know more it than 999 or so of the next 1000 webmasters you meet. And I've known professional scientists, historians, writers, musicians, preachers. Professionally, I can't compete there. I compete elsewhere. And that too is typical of the very active ODP editors--the ones who have done the vast majority of the ODP content development. I can't name a single meta-editor who is an SEO professional, or affiliate-marketer or ad-banner-farmer webmaster. There are a few, a very few active editors who are in those businesses, and several former meta-editors have been.

(5) The kind of professionalism that characterizes the ODP is completely different. There are many ODP editors who are recognized professionals in the real world, and who have contributed their expertise to the ODP. (I'm not one of them: I hardly ever edit in Software Development or Accounting categories.) But for these, it's still silly to talk about competition: a veterinarian in Texas doesn't compete with one in Massachusetts, and a lawyer in Minnesota doesn't compete with one in Malawi. And for these real professionals, a website is a very small part of their own professional promotion -- the yellow pages, newspaper ads, business cards and office signage are far more significant. And in any case, in the field of "WEB CONTENT DEVELOPMENT" (which is what ODP editors do), these professional topical experts are STILL amateurs. This is true even of people who have done professional web development. The fairly small number of editors who have done real-world professional content creation (that is, performed writing or composition or photography or sculpture services) doesn't really affect this equation.

(6) Other posts have emphasized the difference between your concept of category-controller and the ODP concept of many category-contributors in each category, and a set of permission-granters different than the listed category editors. They are right, and I won't repeat that. I will emphasize that you could have read all about ODP organization and governance on the ODP website, instead of believing the mendacious ignoramuses who told you otherwise. Or you could have looked at all the competitive sites already listed in ANY commercial category, and figured out that the theory of one editor excluding his competition was an absolute non-starter.

(7) If all this is true, why should you mention your webmastering work at all? Because

(a) you're the sort of person who tells the truth, and wants people to think you tell the truth? (b) you want to list all your applicable web experience, because ODP editing is after all a web-related activity, and it would be kind of strange and implausible for the ODP-editing impulse to be your first creative action on the internet? (c) your webmastering activity is an indication of knowledge and interest in some subject -- that is, were you competent to recognize valuable content, however you came up with it? were you interested in adding to the sum of human culture, or just replicating clutter already better represented elsewhere? And those are two very important questions asked of an editor application.

I have only met three DMOZ editors in real life (many more online). One was a high school teacher that edits as part of a class project. One was a university academic who edited in his area of expertise. One was a physician who edited in their area of speciality. NONE of these were webmasters (though I assume the school, university and hospital did have websites). Interestingly 2 of them did not even know what SEO stood for!

So why would the DMOZ webmaster accept me if i pause a threat to him and his business. After all im his competitor. Its almost like Walmart accepting Sears to sell thier products in thier stores.

If a new applicant poses (or seems to pose) a threat to neutral & objective editing by altering or deleting the listings of competing sites or stuffing the directory with their own listings, they probably will be declined. Plan to park your business issues at the door and work on building a directory of useful sites.

giz (g1smd), first I thought of posting a detailed reply but then it would take the discussion off topic. my advice to souffle is

first of all why do you want to become a DMOZ editor, DMOZ is becoming irrelevant day by day and even google has started downplaying its importance

2. if anyway you want to, try all three options, use 3 different email id's, 3 different choice of userid's and 3 sets of sites you want to recommend. Selection as editor is subjective, you never know which one will work for you on a particular day.

and once you become a editor, please dont become just another promoting his/her own interest, work for betterment of a great idea.

let me rephrase this.Most DMOZ Editors are webmasters themselfes promoting thier own site. Another webmaster applies to become an editor with websites competeing with his own . So why would the DMOZ webmaster accept me if i pause a threat to him and his business. After all im his competitor. Its almost like Walmart accepting Sears to sell thier products in thier stores.

Now, I am no friend of ODP, but that statement is just so far out in left field that I have to ask exactly where you got all those "facts".

And based on your posts here, and lack of integrity, I would not bother to apply.

The editor of a category has no input into whether a new editor is accepted for that category or not, FWIW. Even if a category editor were prejudiced against you or your site, there wouldn't be anything they could do about it; they'd never even be informed you had applied until after you were already accepted.

Give me a break Iím just asking for help here. I am honest, im trying to find out if DMOZ are honest thatís all. Another reason why im suspicious is that the category im applying in only has ecommerce websites with no informative sites what so ever. At least if i go in i will change all that.

The motives, and intent of the ODP as an organisation are honest, and the vast majority of the people that can currently edit there are honest too. The few bad apples that manage to get in from time to time are soon weeded out and shown the door. It is self governing. There is no anarchy.

Below is only a qote from a link i found on google that started this discusion:

On this DMOZ page called "Become an Editor at the Open Directory Project" they say

"If you are a webmaster or associated with any website, please disclose this on your application."

To that, Iíll give this advice: I donít believe that DMOZ wants people who smell like SEOís or site owners. After all, arenít they many of the corrupt ones. I personally wouldnít use your site as one of the siteís youíre submitting when you apply. Keep in mind the DMOZ quote

I think it's fair to say that DMOZ doesn't want people who *write* like SEO's or advertisers. If the site descriptions you provide sound like ad copy, that's very much not the kind of writers the ODP is looking for, even if you're completely honest and unbiased and don't even have a website of your own. On the other hand, if you write like a librarian, then it's no problem if you're a webmaster or SEO or a circus performer for that matter, as long as there's nothing in your application that screams "dishonest" at people.

Hiding your affiliations, by the way, does scream "dishonest" at people.

you become a editor, please dont become just another promoting his/her own interest, work for betterment of a great idea.

No. My remark was for the following dishonest advice.

2. if anyway you want to, try all three options, use 3 different email id's, 3 different choice of userid's and 3 sets of sites you want to recommend. Selection as editor is subjective, you never know which one will work for you on a particular day.

Pretending to be 3 different people is not the way to start as a DMOZ editor.